CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016 that the author complained about his defence. On the contrary, he received a proper defence during all stages of the case. While the author argues that his defence counsel drew up a formal appeal lacking any reasoning, this is standard procedure in Iceland when appeals are initiated. At later stages of the appeal, the defence counsel submits written observations to the court. The defence counsel also presents oral arguments at a hearing before the Supreme Court. The author was not coerced into pleading guilty. He might have repeatedly been asked about his conduct, but this does not mean that the police compelled him to enter a guilty plea. 4.21 Regarding the claim in respect of article 14 (5) of the Covenant, the State party asserts that the author benefited from an effective appeal. The author could have presented witnesses and given an oral statement before the Supreme Court, which could have invalidated the decision of the Reykjanes District Court and remanded the case for retrial. However, the evidence and arguments the author submitted did not change the Supreme Court’s assessment. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments dated 30 May 2017, the author asserts that the State party did not dispute his version of the facts with regard to the criminal proceedings against him. The State party’s position was essentially based on the existence of domestic laws that allegedly guaranteed the author’s rights as a criminal defendant, but the State party completely ignored the fact that these guarantees were violated in the author’s case. 5.2 The State party incorrectly interpreted the Committee’s rule of procedure pertaining to the time limit for submissions. The author submitted his communication within three years of the issuance of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the same matter. 5.3 The domestic laws on non-discrimination were not applied in the author’s case. Moreover, although the State party maintains that the author changed his testimony on the issue of whether he knew Y, any contradiction in his testimony would not have given the domestic authorities the right to discriminate against him. The author concedes that, at the beginning of the criminal proceedings, his testimony was very contradictory. Nevertheless, it was the authorities’ refusal to notify the author of the charges against him in a language he understood and the psychological violence they inflicted on him by forcing him to testify against himself that caused him to mistrust them and make the contradictory statements in question. 5.4 While the State party asserted that the author’s role in the alleged crime was different from that of the defendant of Icelandic nationality, this is not correct. In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that the Icelandic defendant had called the police, provided Y with accommodation and called the author to ask him to take Y out. All of this demonstrates that the Icelandic defendant was significantly more involved in the alleged crime than the author. The author merely took Y to the hotel at the request of the Icelandic defendant. The differential treatment of the two defendants demonstrates that the author was subjected to discrimination. Moreover, the State party acknowledged that the media in Iceland is uncontrolled. 5.5 The author reiterates his arguments under articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant and maintains that the State party did not deny his allegations but merely stated that the author’s arrest was necessary. The State party did not specify the factors that led to this assumption. 5.6 The State party recognized that solitary confinement may only be ordered for a maximum of 28 days if the maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years. The State party demonstrated disregard for the author’s rights by arguing that the punishment for human trafficking has now increased to 12 years (whereas it was eight years at the time of the author’s trial). One of the essential rights under the Covenant is the principle of the nonretroactive effect of laws. The fact that the penalty for human trafficking increased after the author’s arrest does not make his solitary confinement lawful. 5.7 The author substantiated his claims under article 14 of the Covenant and the State party did not contest the assertion that defamatory material was published in the media about him. While the State party cited domestic laws guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, it did not demonstrate that those guarantees were applied to the author. The author contests the State 8